This is called "vetting" (here and here). You might want to try it out sometime.
(This doesn't mean the stories are correct in their negative review of Palin's tenure as mayor and governor. However, if you vet people correctly, you discover the facts that might be interpreted as negative, and prepare arguments against them. Thus, when newspapers show up to do stories - like these- you can respond and not look like idiots. In the case of these two stories, the McCain campaign had no response of any relevance, which makes the stories look worse. What moron thought that not vetting a Vice-Presidential candidate was a good idea?)
Posted by baltar at September 14, 2008 08:24 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Corruption | PoliticsYou know, I'm not sure it matters whether they vetted her or not, because both sides of the argument reflect equally poorly on the McCain campaign. If not, they don't care, cynical, sexist blah blah and so forth. If they did, and figured this stuff would be handleable, cynical sexist and so forth. I'm really tired of Sarah Palin. At first the discussion was "stop condemning her, wait and see what she has to offer." Well, looks like that first impulse was on target, and now the task is to make sure this ridiculous decision-making sticks to McCain like stink on shit. Hrm, replace that "like" with "is."
Posted by: binky at September 14, 2008 09:55 AM | PERMALINK